Changes to DUI penalties still possible

Posted by Mike Florio on June 13, 2012, 8:39 AM EST

Getty Images

Even with a Collective Bargaining Agreement that runs for nine more years, the NFL and the NFLPA can agree to modify the deal at any time. (If you don’t believe that, just ask the Redskins and the Cowboys and the $46 million in cap space they used to have.)

There’s a more natural opportunity to beef up DUI penalties without reopening the deal, given that the portion of the labor deal that deals with DUIs still hasn’t been resolved.

As Albert Breer of NFL Network recently pointed out, the league and the union are still operating under the 2010 substance-abuse policy, given the ongoing delays in working out an agreement regarding HGH testing. (They’re also still operating under the terms of the 2010 policy regarding steroids and other performance-enhancing substances.)

As a result, DUI penalties currently reside among a stew of issues including HGH testing, the appeals process (which still gives the Commissioner final say), and any other issues or concerns regarding the substance-abuse and steroids policies.

So if the NFL wants the DUI penalties to increase, the league needs to be willing to bend on some other issue(s), like using an outside arbitrator to determine whether the punishments imposed by the league should be upheld or overturned.

In no case should the prosecutor also be the judge. And even though the league prefers to not have a third party stick its proboscis into 345 Park Avenue’s business, when it comes to questions regarding whether and to what extent players will be available to play, public confidence in the league office and in turn the game of football itself would be enhanced if some external, unbiased person were charged with hearing the league’s side of the story, the player’s side of the story, and making a fair, balanced decision based on the language of the policy in question and the facts at issue.

why don’t you guys just drink at the custom bar you built in your over extravagant mansion????its not that hard to get bimbos to go to a mansion party.

botchedextrapoint says:Jun 13, 2012 8:49 AM

Please hurry up and get this player discipline stuff sorted. Use an independent arbitrator, give them real power and you’ll never look back.

eagleswin says:Jun 13, 2012 9:16 AM

As a result, DUI penalties currently reside among a stew of issues including HGH testing, the appeals process (which still gives the Commissioner final say), and any other issues or concerns regarding the substance-abuse and steroids policies.

So if the NFL wants the DUI penalties to increase, the league needs to be willing to bend on some other issue(s), like using an outside arbitrator to determine whether the punishments imposed by the league should be upheld or overturned

—————————————

I find it hilarious that you are recommending that the league bow down to the NFLPA on yet another player safety issue. The question that should be asked of the NFLPA is why are they resisting this? If it’s good for the players in that it gives them another reason to think before getting behind the wheel, why does the league need to give a concession?

Has anyone gotten a good reason why the NFLPA is resisting mandatory mouthguards, leg pads, and concussion resistant helmets? I mean beyond the “we must conduct studies” that will be done right after it’s snowing in hades. Or the “population study” for HGH which is so flagrently bogus that they can’t find a reputable doctor willing to do it.

The NFLPA, to anyone willing to open their eyes, is only interested in protecting the union leadership and not it’s members. It’s not about what’s best for the players, it’s only about what’s in it for them.

Commentary like the above helps promote that by pushing another agenda on top of the original article. We know that you don’t agree with Goodell’s power. Whether you privately do or don’t it’s good business to support it as it wins you favor with the players but it has no business in this article.

mitchitized says:Jun 13, 2012 9:16 AM

I’ll never understand why folks refuse to acknowledge the real problem. The teams should not be responsible for meting out punishment for athletes that drink and drive, that is the job of the POLICE.

All this talk about being a high profile role model, that’s all a bunch of poorly-disguised lies if our justice system turns a blind eye to athletes that break the law.

I’m an executive and am also held to a higher standard. If I was jailed for drunken driving it would most likely cost me my job, which would also pressure me to make a career change. These guys get suspended for a game, or just fined – and the fines represent what, maybe 0.000001% of their yearly salaries? What happened to the cops that pulled them over?

If the NFL has to pick up and do the job that our law enforcement cannot, then we truly are in a heap of trouble.

eagleswin says:Jun 13, 2012 9:22 AM

botchedextrapoint says:
Jun 13, 2012 8:49 AM
Please hurry up and get this player discipline stuff sorted. Use an independent arbitrator, give them real power and you’ll never look back.

——————————————-

Find me a decision made by a special master/arbitrator that they lost that they didn’t appeal or take to Judge Doty in the past?

The Goodell thing is a red herring. They’ve never abided by an independent ruling in the past and they aren’t about to start now.

The NFLPA PR department has done a good job of shifting the focus from the players onto Goodell. How many people have blasted Burbank and the other guy for ruling in favor of the league in the recent grievances? It doesn’t matter who the messenger is, he’s going to get killed.

abninf says:Jun 13, 2012 9:23 AM

Who actually voted no?

savocabol1 says:Jun 13, 2012 9:31 AM

I voted no. The reason…. the fact that drinking and driving and breaking the law should be enough of a deterrent for these guys to not drink and drive. They are going to get in trouble with the law, if busted. All of these men are grown adults and know the consequences. Being suspended for 2 games or for 6 isn’t going to stop these guys from drinking and driving. They don’t think about that kind of stuff when they pound tequila shots off of some groupies stomach.

You want a stiff deterrent then make them suspended for a full year on the second offense. Otherwise don’t bother.

You aren’t going to scare a problem drinker with the threat of money loss. In their mind, that’s just overhead to continue on their merry way. Now if a DUI automatically got them into the drug program with no drinking as part of the solution, they would make them think twice.